Re: [asa] Fwd: Denyse reviews Collins

Hi Ted,

   Yes, the lawyer’s fees line was meant in humour - glad you took it
that way.

   Please excuse me for belabouring this, but it is not that I don't
get your point; it’s rather that I don't agree with it and don't see
how you can maintain it. Thus we are taking two sides of an argument,
one that I think is quite important. Perhaps with the latter, you
disagree.

   My point about Kuhn is that his position (not speaking about
vacuums or about ID) can still be used to justify 'universal
evolutionism' or evolution used as a 'theory of everything,' both of
which seem to me as untenable perspectives. It seems that you would
suggest otherwise, and instead still wholeheartedly *accept*
evolution as a 'theory of everything,' even with the caveat mentioned
below. You confirmed this in March in response to my questions even
about the very article you cite below, "Intelligent Design on Trial."
The link to that thread is here:
   http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200603/0096.html

   There you say "if evolution presently functions as a 'theory of
everything'..." and later, you confirmed that you indeed thought it
was just that, i.e. the 'modern creation story,' which comes from
Mary Midgley's words. To me this is mixing up science, theology and
philosophy too much. For example, these words that I just wrote, now,
right here, *should* they be said to have 'evolved' onto the screen?
I would say no; the intentionality, the agency, the non-randomness,
the purpose, the teleology, the meaning, etc. all go against using
evolutionary theory to try to explain *the fact that someone is
reading my words right now.*

   When I claimed that you are repeating 'a mantra of secular
philosophers/historians of science,' I meant that the idea that
evolution is a 'theory of everything' is peculiar or precious to
secular philosophers/historians of science. D. Dennett is a prime
example in philosophy who has said such a thing – ‘everything
evolves’ (even ‘freedom’). When you say 'everything evolves' (that
is, if you were to say that), it would be difficult to discern how
your position didn't support Dennett's philosophy, on that particular
point. In this sense, I am speaking about the secularizing dimension
of evolutionary theory, and not about the biological, geological,
botanical, ecological or other (philosophy of) natural scientific
dimensions. This way Michael Roberts won't have to berate me (as a
geological idiot) and he and I can remain friendly on the same page
with regard to his geological proofs! The Anglican Church, after all,
even being the land of Spencer and Darwin, does not today
  hitch its salvation to evolutionary theory!

   You wrote: "No, I don't believe in evolution explains everything,
in the sense that it can "explain" why the universe exists, why it
has the particular character and attributes that it has, and why we
are here ourselves. I take that to be the sense of your question."

   Thank you for noting this; that you believe evolutionary theory
cannot *explain* everything, like *why* the universe exists. That was
one sense of my line of questioning to you.

   You wrote: "When I have spoken of evolution as a 'theory of
everything,' it's only in the limited *scientific* sense that you
seem to grasp: as an historical explanation of the development of the
physical universe and living things
why shouldn't we expect it to be embraced unless/until a better
theory of comparable explanatory scope comes along?"

   Here comes the second (and perhaps more important) sense in which
I challenged you about accepting evolution as a ‘theory of
everything.’ Everything, as in 'all things,' implies that not only
all things are subject to that theory, but that the theory applies
(equally everywhere, in all places) across all academic disciplines.
This, I cannot agree with – though perhaps you wouldn't either. Even
if I accept (parts of) the 'creation story' of evolution as "an
historical explanation of the development of the physical universe
and living things," it does not mean that I *must* subscribe to
evolutionary theory in economics, political science, psychology, etc.

   This is my point, which I think is being lost within a discussion
of history (and philosophy) of 'natural science' and not of science
in general. If Ted or anyone else at ASA takes the position that
evolutionary natural science somehow is hierarchically more important
than social sciences, or philosophy or theology, for that matter,
that knowledge moves in one direction from simple to more complex or
from more complex to simple, or that evolutionary social science is
*just simply wrong* then they must confront the real manifestation of
evolutionary thought in everyday life, that is, outside of the
laboratories and the science of natural development. They would then
come to admit that some things simply *don't evolve!* In doing so,
they would invalidate the notion of evolution as a 'theory of
everything,' and that would be something important against the
secularism promoted by Dennett and others who use evolution for that
purpose. This says nothing (yet) about Kuhn's
  vacuums or paradigm shifting - it just attacks one collosal feature
of evolutionary theory that is sometimes (unfortunately) accepted.

   This argument can be solved rather quickly and simply by Ted
answering one question: what is an example of something that doesn't
evolve (into being or having become)? This is not an epistemological
question about what the 'theory of evolution' explains, but an
ontological question about what really perhaps *doesn’t evolve* after
all. After receiving an answer to this question by Ted, I will let
the long conversation rest and then perhaps we can return to more
civilized dialogue.

   Thanks for your patience with my outside of the (Darwin’s) black
box approach.

   Gregory

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 29 13:11:12 2006